Justice in the shadows: Mendocino court ruling threatens public access and constitutional rights

Mendocinocoast.news editor’s note on the August 1 Mendocino County Courts ending all public access to online criminal court files:

As a community-based news organization committed to transparency, accountability and public service, Mendocinocoast.news strongly opposes the new local rule adopted by the Mendocino Superior Court on August 1, 2025, which eliminates all public online access to criminal court files.

This rule excludes the general public, press, witnesses, and victims from reviewing records online that are essential to understanding and reporting on our justice system. We believe this policy violates the spirit – and potentially the letter – of the First Amendment and the constitutional principles of due process and checks and balances by excluding the press and making the public second class citizens to attorneys.

We urge the court to reverse this decision and restore reasonable public access to criminal records.  We also call on elected officials, legal experts, and community members to speak out against this erosion of transparency.

Justice must be visible to be accountable. Mendocinocoast.news will continue to advocate for open courts and informed communities. 

On August 1, 2025, a new local rule quietly took place in Mendocino County – one that bars the general public, press, and even victims and witnesses from accessing online criminal court files and makes any access ridiculously and unnecessarily difficult. The rule was enacted in 2019 by an unelected advisory group named the California Judicial Council. Now online for criminal court is only the calendar, not any files. Those have all been removed.

What exactly is happening?

The Aug 1 new rule separates users of court files into two groups. Lawyers get increased access. The public, press and many others with business with the courts can only see calendars now online, not any criminal court files. To see the files, these newly second-class citizens must go into the courthouse, wait in line for a special terminal. If that person wants any copies, they must first pay to see the file on the computer (its not online, online means the open internet). Then pay a time to buy only full files from the county. One must pay twice and pay greatly increased fees on both purchases. If someone else wants the files or is using the computer, or if it isn’t working, the Judicial Council says the person seeking files is just out of luck. This is a direct attack on taxpayers. It effectively excludes journalists who wish to look through all the files or follow up on reports by confidential sources that their rights have been violated by the legal system.  For all practical purposes, it creates a closed court system, where facts are very expensive to verify and where research into the way justice is being administered is totally impractical.

How that excludes the media and other third party observers:

This change is not just a bureaucratic change – it’s a democratic crisis.

The rule makes it very difficult and expensive for the general public and by extension the press, witnesses, and many victims of crime to read criminal court files. It requires anyone who is not an attorney to come to either the Ukiah or Fort Bragg courthouses and use a single terminal at each location. Then it really gets difficult and expensive.

For 100 years it was legal to look at court files on paper, then paperclip the copies needed and pay the 50 cents per page.  From the 1970s-2000, Mendocinocoast.news could copy down most of what we needed and use a paper clip for what we needed to be copied maybe 10 pages and pay $5. Most of all, after reading files, we would simply return it without writing about it.  Most of what looks like news isn’t. Back before digitalization,  Mendocinocoast.news didn’t have to wait in line for a computer to even begin research. And in the day of paper files, it was much, much cheaper and more open than this new world.   

Prosecution press releases already dominante the news, now it will very difficult to ever check on the DA.

Searching back several years, almost all news has come when the prosecution issues press releases. In the paper file age, it was much easier to cover cases and reporters did that much more often. Now, everything a reporter is looking into is immediately known. 

Here is an example of why we need to be able to have the same access as attorneys again:

Just 10 days ago the same two cases came up during our reporting.

1. A Fort Bragg woman had a jury trial for DUI. The jury was “hung,” which means some jurors thought she was innocent and some thought she was guilty. The DA’s office chose this occasion to issue a press release, naming her and describing another misdemeanor crime she is accused of.  Local news sites quickly posted this press release as if it were news. This woman was somehow the case of the week. She was a hero of the recovery community before relapsing.  We were astonished that the DA’s office has the resources to expend on retrying someone for DUI instead of dismissing the case after a mistrial. Especially in light of the next case that I was viewing the same day. How was this chosen for news with all that is going on in the courts? We were looking into this.
2. A man who had seven felony sex charges had never been the subject of any DA press release, nor arrest, nor time in jail.  Mendocinocoast.news found this case by chance during 6 hours of court watching in the last week of July. There may be perfectly good explanations. I had hoped to find those reasons and report that or if not, report why the news is being chosen by the DA’s office this way.  I have many more examples. Now its impossible to proceed. I had initially found that the DA does press releases for jury trials and that having a great lawyer helps, but now we will never know if those are the actual answer and the courts will look corrupt from the outside heretofore.

With the courts having effectively excluded the news media from spending the hours necessary reading files to see why justice is being administered this way, we must now fear that the courts will pick and choose who to vilify and who won’t be named. The Fourth Estate, envisioned by the founders of this nation as an annoying but necessary watchdog on government. The Fourth Estate is now tied up outside the courthouse to be fed chosen snacks if he is a good boy.

Q-Doesn’t the new computer system offer all kinds of new services?

A- Not for you and I.

For attorneys, the county is paying its vendor to offer all sorts of free new services as of Aug 1.

But the general public and press get nothing but second class treatment.  Although the county touts those services as being available to the public, the truth is these services are not free nor are they anything new., The “new” services now require anyone who is not a party to a case (attorneys and their clients) to pay for these notices.  One could already buy all these same services from other commercial vendors. This move is a boon to the chosen vendor, Tyler Technologies, which now has control of all court records for all counties in California and is set up to exclude the public from viewing any criminal records whatsoever beyond the simple calendar. 

WHY? WHY and WHY?

Why did the California Judicial Council want to ban the press and public from criminal court records? Why have they forced counties to spend huge amounts of money to do just one thing-exclude the general public and the press from criminal court files? They have never said. No articles have been written that we can find. The Judicial Council has never issued any explanation and has not responded to inquiries by Mendocinocoast.News.

Ok, since the tax funded courts aren’t offering us an explanation, let’s speculate:

The obvious explanation is to cover up wrongdoing in the courts and to increase cronyism.. That has to be taken as a major reason this is happening. We can use the civil court standard and say the preponderance of circumstantial evidence and intentional lack of an explanation for doing it shows that the California Judicial Council is covering up bad stuff happening in our court system. 

Or is it to enrich certain friends of the Judicial Council?

This change enriches several private parties. How is the Judicial Council connected to these businesses?  Please tell us some other reason!  

Most appalling of all – the Judicial Council says public access is purely an option

This entire brouhaha is about one court rule, invented without any explanation ever being provided by the California Judicial Council with zero explanation of why ever provided.  Read the rule yourself by clicking on this blue writing. You will find it has more exits and loopholes than the Interstate 580 interchange with Interstate 80 in Oakland.  Or just read this arrogant, insulting to the public part:

“A court that maintains the following records in electronic form must provide electronic access to them, both remotely and at the courthouse, to the extent it is FEASIBLE to do so: “

Adding the word “feasible,” I was told by an attorney, negates all the words before feasible. “It means if we feel like it,” he said. Public access is like having a vending machine in the lobby, it’s nice but you don’t need to offer that.”  Remember this is an organization run by top attorneys and judges. They didn’t make a mistake by putting the word “feasible” in there. They appear not to care at all whether the public has access to criminal court files and a whole range.

Having written about courts since the 1980s, I can say definitively that it is impossible to write about criminal courts under the authoritarian conditions now being imposed. This might not sound so important if the reader is not a reporter who had free access to public court files for 30 years. Even with free access, only about 5 percent of what is viewed ends up being usable in a news story.  That’s why searching cannot cost a fortune.

Another example: We were the only ones to announce attempted murder charges were dropped. In the future, there will be nobody.

We reported on a man who was arrested for attempted murder. Because court files were still available online, we were able to report he had been acquitted after hearing that ruling live in court. We also needed to have the file in hand to make sure the details were correct.  In the future, people found innocent by a jury or who had charges dismissed will likely have to buy an ad to announce the press release about them was correct but the facts were discovered to be different when examined by a then open court system.

Thanks a lot, boss for a single computer terminal that isnt working at all this week in Fort Bragg and which one has to hope somebody else isn’t using. The computer in Fort Bragg will be in the room directly across from the DA’s office. Any case being researched will require the press and public doing so after registering their name, entering a credit card and being in full view. Among those being forced to use the second class computer only: Victims from a past case. Victims who have not been identified or are not represented by council. Neighbors of the accused who are worried or just want to know what happened. Everybody in the Press. 

That “separate but equal” computer should come with a tag like the ones famously attached to drinking fountains in the old South. 

“Second-class citizens from the press and public must wait their turn to use this terminal, if it works, if not, tough luck. The courts have reserved the internet only for lawyers.”

The press and the public are supposed to be there to watch. Mendocinocoastnews, now relegated to the impossible task of watching the courts from a second-class drinking fountain, is a member of the 4th estate, a check on the government by the press envisioned by the Constitution and the founders.

Lawyers are now given free access to all cases from home. So are the accused. So are prosecutors. 

Just not you and I. 

Some more examples:

Until Aug. 1, we could all read the files attached to the dismissed criminal case against County Auditor Chamise Cubbison. Sorry. That criminal file is now gone from public view. The calendar can be viewed, just not what happened. This reporter read reporter Mike Geniella’s coverage, which was carried in every local media site, and also read the court files. While Mike is a legendary reporter who did an awesome job, Mendocinocoast.news has a different take on the same trial – we will not pursue publication of that story because court files are unavailable.

However terrific a job Mike did, we felt at some point another narrative was needed on Mendocinocoast.news, since every local newspaper and the most popular news sites all simultaneously carried his account of the proceedings.  We can’t follow through on that now.  That story, it’s going in the trash.

Worse, if the same case were to happen today, it would be extremely laborious for Mike or anybody else to submit the kind of stories that Mike did. In his stories, he would use court filings to fill in gaps left when the attorneys had no comment.  And to point out inconsistencies and contradictions.  Sorry, the justice system wants lawyers to see everything but has blindfolded the media.

Before Aug.1 Mendocinocoast.news could still all read the files of the Ukiah police officer who was tried. Poof! All were put under lock and key except for very limited open hours.

This change is AS IF next week the Fort Bragg City Council suddenly decided only their agendas were a public record. No longer would the public be invited to attend or participate or read any of the backup materials. 

A developer would file documents for a polluting, automated factory.  Those plans, along with the staff report about them would then only be available to the developer and the City Council.  But in this theoretica example, you or I, as newly second class members of the public (unless you happen to be accused of a crime or are an attorney of record), wanted to look, we would need to come to City Hall during certain designated hours and look at a computer screen, unless somebody else was using it.  And tough luck during all those many times that one computer didn’t work, the city decided that they really have zero obligation to let the public view any public documents, only the developer and the city staff count.

So then I order copies. It might take 2 days.

The biggest deception in all this:

The thing that most infuriates Mendocinocoast.news is a dishonest, disingenuous effort by the California Judicial Council to pretend this effort has something to do with confidential files, divorce court or hearings on conservatorship. This is a flat-out lie. Confidential files have always been off limits. We have never known anybody who has asked to look at a confidential file or any of the rest on this list.

This is about locking the press and public out of CRIMINAL COURT. Stop switch the distraction tactics.

There are are only two types of court files of any relevance to this or any discussion of public access- criminal court files as in felonies and misdemeanors. 2. Civil court complaints and other similar documents, but not invasive personal issue court types!! The rule that the California Judicial Council issued puts criminal court in the middle of a list of ridiculous items like divorce court and hearings on disability.  What an insulting agency this is to all of us in the general public. They are creating a private criminal court club that used to be called the Mendocino County Superior Court and wish to deceive us by listing a bunch of always confidential files along with criminal court, which has NEVER been confidential like this till now..  They are obviously trying to confuse the issue by pretending that not being able to see online files on murder cases and accused politicians is the same as a reporter or neighbor wanting to nose around divorce court files.

More examples- our research that would have showed law enforcement acted more responsibility than it first appeared- that’s lost too.

Another example of what we have lost is the ability to do research for several hours on a critically important community issue.

After a recent scare over sexual assault in Fort Bragg, sevreal women contacted Mendocinocoast.news about their fears that police and the courts were not taking stalking and peeping Tom cases seriously.

Mendocinocoast.news spent many hours looking at old peeping tom cases and how the prosecution of sex crimes worked. I needed to find out if the police or the prosecutors were dropping the ball. What I found was that prosecutors and police usually went to bat for victims. But the victims often refused to testify, such as the case of the elderly homeless woman that a woman threw fireworks at. And stalking cases we learned about ended when police contacted the man accused. And for stalking to be a crime it has to be repeated. We found a homeless man known for looking in windows that nobody thought was a peeper. After dozens of encounters with this lost man, Fort Bragg Police helped him get mental health treatment for a problem rooted in depression and confusion, not prurient desires.  And people sentenced were often quickly released from custody.  So Mendocinocoast.news was able to find a strong explanation for the worries. We had hoped to do more research and present an article that showed how people can react to this kind of behaviour and the challenges the law faces. The courts have now cut off the access we needed to complete that story, and in our view, have barred anybody from doing a similar story in the future.

We objected to the whole plan after Turner explained it, saying the courts are not supposed to be only for the parties.  

“Unfortunately  this is the new world that we’re in now,” she said.

Mendocinocoast.new asked her if there was any way we could apply for a third party observer status, or put up a bond or….

“There’s no exemptions or anything like that,” she said.

The history of the rule in Mendocino and elsewhere

The California Judicial Council’s rule is 6 years old and applies to all California counties. Many counties implemented it before Mendocino County’s move on Aug. 1 but none I could find before 2025. Other counties are still not excluding the press and public in the way the Judicial Council wishes. In those counties, the public has not yet been turned into second class citizens. They can find them without my help.

The statute is so obscure that it was impossible for Mendocinocoast.news to track it. We found references back more  than a decade.

Mendocino County Superior Court Executive Kim Turner was able to track the original statute back to the early 21st century, but it’s unknown what it said back then. It certainly couldn’t have imposed a ban on public online searching of criminal court files, as there were no vendors at that time to provide services to attorneys only.

The updated rule that created the Aug. 1 rule implemented by Mendocino County dates from 2019. 

She said the pandemic kept the ban of the press and public from criminal court documents from being implemented in 2019.. She said the courts needed everyone to stay away from the actual courthouse while the pandemic was on. So the county implemented a Tyler Technologies system that gave home access to court files in 2021. Before that the county had a wonderful, accessible system from 2004-2021 that had full court file numbers dating back 50 years. That was exterminated, I confirmed back in 2021.  The 2021 program had numerous, serious glitches. We were locked out for 11 months before being able to use it. Because the California Judicial Council had made it OK for computer glitches to eliminate all public access, it was no big deal. It made court files cost money to look at for the first time, but it did work for Mendocinocoast.news from 2022- July 31, 2025.

Then on Aug.1, the county implemented the full lockout of the public  from online criminal court files. as required by the California Judicial Council. There was no particular reason that date was chosen, Turner said. 

Why then? It was on the list of many changes required for court administration under the rules of the California Judicial Council and other state laws and such, she said.

“We were able to go back to following the rule as it was originally designed, the rule 2.503 which restricts the public from seeing certain things unless they come to the courthouse to view them. In Mendocino, all of our records are electronic. We don’t have any paper files anymore, so the only way to look at records is if you have remote access and you’re looking at a civil filing. You can look at civil records from anywhere from your home, from your office, but if you want to look at criminal records, mental health records, any kind of restraining orders, family law records, you have to come into the courthouse in order to be able to see those,” Turner said.

This explanation seems to match the search of other counties by Mendocinocoast.news. Many have already locked out the public and the press. Some are still using the old systems and a person can read files.

We call on the Mendocino Superior Court to reconsider this rule, and on the public to demand transparency. Justice must not be hidden behind closed doors.

Let’s look at who the California Judicial Council is from their own statement on their website”

“The Judicial Council of California is the policymaking body for the state’s court system, responsible for ensuring the consistent, independent, impartial, and accessible administration of justice. It is part of the judicial branch of California’s state government. The council is authorized by the California Constitution and is led by the Chief Justice.” Accessible? LOL. 

The Judicial Council and their leader, California Supreme Court Court Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero make many statements about increasing access to the court system by underserved and marginalized communities. By locking them out? 

Let’s look at the hypocrisy of that. This ruling changes nothing about civil court.  Mendocinocoast.news can go on reading most civil court files from home, although they are more costly now. Complaints are the only newsworthy part of  civil court and nothing has changed to make complaints inaccessible.

Civil court compliants are for rich people, companies, landowners, lawyers willing to take on cases for poor people  they think they be paid for when they win, and people of means, almost entirely.  Civil complaints are cases like Apple versus Microsoft, or somebody suing Walmart for falling on a slippery floor (the lawyer gets paid when you get paid type cases). Those cases are OK for the media to watch over or for the public to view if they wish to pay.

But online access for criminal court, and thus oversight for criminal court, was cut off, made as difficult as possible and deemed optional. Who does the Judicial Council think are the victims of unequal treatment in the courts?  Perhaps unsevered and marginalized communities?

Go to Nevada or Oregon if you want to watch and see if justice is working for the poor and marginazlid.  One last big question are the courts REQUIRED to do this? Does the Judicial Council enforce its rules?  I asked Turner this and she replied the court, being a court follows the rules set down for it.

“The expectation is the courts will follow the rules… I know it’s it’s very inconvenient, and I wish it wasn’t so. And I hope at some point in the future, you know, Judicial Council will take a look at that again. But right now, it’s pretty locked down,” she said.

We understand the courts must follow the rules and there is really no such thing as a rogue court, or is there?  We believe the courts are all violating the Constitution by creating first-class and second-class citizens with unequal rights to view public documents. What do you think?

Repeat no show jurors will soon begin to be arrested, BTW. This is new

Jury duty?  Why would you? This has become a private club criminal court system has locked taxpayers out or at best humiliated them by making them second class users. You can’t check the facts, you can’t legitimately watch the courts now. It’s illegal not to do jury duty, but many civic-minded people still do. Should they?  If you don’t appear now, they will drag you in. This is a first. People aren’t serving precisely because they have lost faith in the court system. Now with a really big reason to lose faith in the courts, they will arrest you for the first time for doing so. Or at least the first time in a long time. I don’t know if they arrested no show jurors in 1910, 1950 or 1970.

Add to this the fact that the courts are no longer selecting by region, meaning its much more likely that a Fort Bragg user is much more likely now to drive to Ukiah for jury duty and visa versa. Prospective jurors from Westport going to Ukiah might now pass a prospective jurors from Hopland coming to serve in Fort Bragg! 

Turner explains:

“We changed our jury system from regional (coastal and inland) to the entire county for two reasons.  1) we were the only court in CA that had a regional pool.  All other courts summoned from the entire county.  2) our juror “no show” rate has been very high since COVID.  We are actually implementing a Juror Failure to Appear program in which jurors that have disregarded our summons repeatedly will have to come before a judge to explain why.  We hope our juror appearance rates will improve by summoning from the entire county.”

Ok folks back to the phone now, until YOU or yours are the ones stuck in this much more closed system. If you call us, we can’t really find out anymore if you are being treated fairly or not.